Ukraine Russia War Update - Col Douglas Macgregor

Watch the VIDEO HERE

[Music]

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Host of Judging Freedom

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 21st, 2022. It's about 11 a.m. here on the United States East Coast. With the country's attention focused on the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the past hour and the remainder of which will come Thursday, we cannot lose sight of what continues to happen in Ukraine. We have today our go-to military expert, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who needs no introduction to this audience.

Colonel Macgregor, it's always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us here on Judging Freedom.

Douglas Macgregor:

Sure!

Andrew Napolitano:

So, a couple of events have occurred since we were last together. But before we zero in on them, can you give us your assessment from your observations and sources of how the conflict is going in Ukraine and how and when it will likely end up?

Douglas Macgregor:

Well, the first question is an easy one to answer. Ukraine has lost this war. I would argue [Ukraine] had lost it some time ago. It's becoming so apparent that even the most ardent supporters of Ukraine's war on Russia in London, Berlin, Paris, or the United States and Washington can't stand up and say anything else.

I suppose some will, but the truth is the war is over. The Ukrainians are losing daily somewhere between 500 and 1,000 dead and wounded. Their army is effectively annihilated. They're throwing reservists, the equivalent of what we would call National Guardsmen, into the buzzsaw, and the Russians are very calmly methodically eradicating whatever shows up.

The Russians have already begun consolidating their control over 25-30 percent of Ukraine, where the Ukrainian forces were previously paused to attack Russia. They now control territory responsible for roughly 80 percent of Ukraine's gross national product, so I expect that the Russians will hold on to this and incorporate it into Russia; it will be annexed; it was historically Russian.

               How will this end?

               Well, we have many people who seem to be determined that it will not end. That is extremely dangerous because the longer this last, the greater the potential for this regional conflict to widen and engulf more countries and ultimately drag us in.

               Some people think it is the real goal, as incomprehensible as that may seem.

Andrew Napolitano:

Is the United States still sending cash and military equipment, or have the $56 billion that Congress authorized plus some of the President's discretionary funds as recently as another $1 billion? This is the type of discretion we give to the United States President? Has that all been spent? Has it all been delivered?

Douglas Macgregor:

Well, not all of it has been spent. Not all of it has yet been delivered, but most of it is effectively gone, and most Americans don't understand that we are paying double. We're nearly double what we usually pay for equipment because remember what happens? We ship equipment, support, and supplies to Ukraine as well as cash because we effectively fund the Ukrainian government.

If we stop funding the Ukrainian government, everything will collapse. I'm sure Mr. Zelensky would climb into an airplane and fly to Miami, where he owns a mansion [also in Tuscany, Italy], and essentially try to duck any responsibility for what's gone on.

But we continue to send hundreds of millions of dollars in hard cash over there that pays everyone. The critical thing is that the military equipment we send costs us twice what it usually would.

Andrew Napolitano:

And why is that?

Douglas Macgregor:

Well, first, we can't replace it right away. That's part of the problem. We must replace it. To replace it, we have to pay more [than] for what we're giving away. So, we end up sending enormous quantities of money in a direct transfer right to the Department of Defense. If you simply view this as part of the American defense budget, well, now you're approaching a trillion dollars in ways we never have.

We're spending so recklessly at this point. It's hard to know exactly how much we are investing in the Department of Defense and, of course, in our intelligence agencies.

Andrew Napolitano:

All right, if we give them a tank and, I'm just going to throw out a round number, we provide them with a tank worth a million dollars, it's going to cost us $1.25 million to replace it? Is that the essence?

Douglas Macgregor:

At least, at least.

Andrew Napolitano:

Okay. Has any of the people around the President, as far as you know, military, diplomatic, or intelligence, come to the same conclusions you just articulated.

Douglas Macgregor:

Well, if there are, they're in deep hide, let's face it, you know. You've got to keep in mind something, and this is what Americans don't understand. People say, well how could we have reached these conclusions and done such a stupid thing, say in the wake of 9/11 or any number of different instances, [such as] in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, [and] now with Ukraine?

The point is that people in the intelligence system always provide sound analysis. It's just that their research is not wanted. So, you have political leaders who essentially pick and choose from the intelligence estimates.

The same thing is valid on the military side with generals. There's an old expression; Presidents ultimately get the generals they want. Now that can be positive. Look what Lincoln went through until he finally had Ulysses Grant; that's a good example. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was a little more fortunate early on with Marshall, but it was still a tough fight for Marshall to build an army because FDR wanted to fight the whole war with the Air Force and the Navy.

These things happened over time, and John F. Kennedy (JFK) ultimately got the generals he wanted, and they were the generals that led us into Vietnam. Everyone does this, and people forget that general officers don't emerge heavily or surprisingly. No, he agrees with them.

Andrew Napolitano:

But there must be military intelligence and CIA that have come to the same conclusion that Ukraine is losing, that Ukraine has lost.

I'm sure that Russia controls enough property. So, it's 80 percent of the gross national product, which includes the ability to derive taxes for the government to stay alive.

               Is somebody telling that to Joe Biden, and is he rejecting it, or maybe you don't know this because you're not in the administration?

               Is that advice not even making its way into the oval office?

Douglas Macgregor:

You know, I suspect that our friend President Biden is sort of a mushroom. They keep him in a dark place and feed him crap. I think Susan Rice, Jake Sullivan, Blinken; oligarchs, frankly wealthy influential figures that control the democratic party; and, let's face it, large portions of the Republican Party dominate Washington. They all have much more influence now than Americans realize. They're running the show, so I think they're not telling Joe Biden anything they don't want him to know.

               But more importantly, they're riding this train to oblivion, and they're not going to get off. They're throwing more coal into the locomotive with each passing day now as they're doubling down on failure in the belief that if they just hang on long enough somehow or another miraculously, they're going to win.

               They're destroying NATO, and they're tearing Europe apart.

               Europeans are finally beginning to wake up to the disaster.

               They've lost control of Eastern Europe; you have the Lithuanians who want to cut the Russians off from East Prussia or this place called Kaliningrad.

               You have Russian retired officers now calling for Putin to commit nuclear weapons to the defense of Kaliningrad.

               At the same time, you have the Poles who continue to advocate for greater violence against Russia and more support for the non-existent Ukrainian state because, let's face it, Ukraine is now a failed state.

               It's collapsed. People are being pushed at gunpoint into Russian fire. This whole thing is a disaster, but no one wants to admit failure because they know once they realize failure, they lose all credibility.

Andrew Napolitano:

What could we or what could The United States have done to have tempered or lessened the bloodshed? You're talking about five or six months ago, Colonel.

Douglas Macgregor:

Of course, we could have paid attention to what Mr. Putin was saying and had been saying for a decade.

I mean, this goes back to 2008 in Budapest and the Munich Security Conference where he effectively said we [Russia] could not accept what you [EU-US-NATO] are doing. We will not tolerate the presence of NATO forces, particularly U.S forces, on our borders.

               We [EU-US-NATO] could have listened to that.

               There was always the opportunity to say; we don't need Ukraine; we don't need to turn Ukraine into a platform for an attack against Russia.

               We don't need it. It's unnecessary. Russia [the Russian Federation today], whatever we don't like about it, is not the Soviet Union.

               We refuse to do any of those things. We refuse to consider neutrality.

               And remember, we also intervened once.

The intervention began by Putin, and frankly, I disagree with people who say Putin's evil. He started this war. No, I think we [EU-US-NATO] started the war. Putin simply acted as he did because he felt he had no choice, or he would end up with the equivalent of something like Pershing missiles in Eastern Ukraine. That would threaten and destroy Russia.

               So, I think he [Putin] did what he felt he had to do.

               But even after he did, he was always willing to negotiate.

               We kept intervening and telling Zelensky, and his friends, don't give an inch; we'll support you, and perhaps they thought.

I wouldn't be surprised they may well have thought that we were coming to the rescue, and at the time, I said they were in the same position the polls were in 1939 when Churchill and the French said, "we'll stand by you, Poland." Well, that didn't do the polls any damn good, and Poland emerged from the war perhaps in the worst position of anybody.

But the point is, we refused to consider anything that made sense, and no one looked at the Region. This is a part of the world, Judge [Napolitano], where we don't want a war.

This is [a de facto World War III] more dangerous than anything else we've experienced in the last 75 years.

Andrew Napolitano:

As recently as this morning, General Sir Patrick Sanders, Chief of the General Staff of the British military, I guess the rough equivalent to our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "we are the generation that will be preparing British soldiers for World War III. What do you make of that? What do you make of a public statement like that by the Chief, the Highest-ranking military officer of Great Britain?

Douglas Macgregor:

Well, we need to understand something. The British system is very different from our system.

You can still reach one or two stars in the British army based on demonstrated character, competence, and intelligence. That's impossible in our system today. Everything is highly politicized. However, the British will tell you quite openly that you don't get to three or four stars without being politically acceptable to the reigning political leadership or regime, whatever government that happens. My point is this. Sir Patrick Sanders would not say what he did unless Boris Johnson told him to say something like that.

Andrew Napolitano:

So, Boris Johnson is a madman. Why would he have his Chief Military Officer say something like that?

Douglas Macgregor:

Well, I don't want to be too harsh, but I think it's reasonable to say that Boris Johnson is a bloviating blowhard and a fool, and he was known for that for many decades.

Tragically, he ended up where he is. He's an opportunist. He's not the first one. I mean, I saw a lot of this kind of behavior from Tony Blair during the Kosovo air campaign and then subsequently when we went into Iraq.

He thought it was his opportunity to posture his Churchillian. I think Boris Johnson has simply taken that to the extreme. He thinks this is benefiting him politically. I think it's disastrous. I think he will face a no-confidence vote and be out on his ear within the next few months. [Johnson resigned on July 7th, 2022]

Andrew Napolitano:

I agree with you about Johnson, but let's look at the other side of the coin: what Sir Patrick said. If the fundamental goal of Anthony Blinken, the American Secretary of State, is to make it look like we were dragged reluctantly into a war so that we can knock off Putin and liberate Russia, amounting to what I think he would say. Might not Sir Patrick's language have been part of that goal and that pattern? As stated, Sir Patrick wouldn't be where he is if he weren't part of the European globalists with the same mindset as the American Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Agree or disagree?

Douglas Macgregor:

No, I think your point is valid. The question is how far we take it. Once you move to the edge of the abyss, we realize we're talking about waging high-end conventional warfare in Eastern Europe.

               I think everyone in Europe would take a quick step backward. They're not interested in that.

In the back of his mind, Patrick Sanders may also think that the British army could finally be funded adequately.

Remember, the United States Marine Corps is twice the size of the British army. So, you're not talking about a significant force.

The British today is about as irrelevant to what happens on the continent as they were in 1880. Their army is tiny, and it would have to be dramatically enlarged, reorganized, and re-equipped. So, it's more hot air than reality, which again goes back to my point on Boris Johnson. He's hot air. He's not real. Now that doesn't mean you're not right.

Perhaps Sullivan thinks in his mind this is an excellent way sort of to move into the fight. But then again, you've got Millie. You need to understand General Millie. General Millie knows we're in no position to fight anybody. This legacy force emerged from the last 20 years of clubbing baby seals.

We don't seem to understand. We haven't fought anybody who can fight back. We're not prepared. If I were to sketch for the audience the logistical realities and what's going on in Central Europe right now, people would be horrified at the thought that we would even consider moving 50 miles into Ukraine. It's crazy. And then, finally, there's always the nuclear dimension. Once you move towards the Russian border, there is no guarantee that we will not face a nuclear confrontation.

Andrew Napolitano:

This is a terrible situation. If the President of the United States doesn't understand what you're saying and if the people around him, you mentioned Sullivan, you mean Jake Sullivan, forgive me I don't know his real first name, this is Clinton's chief advisor on national security, now the national security advisor to the President of the United States with the highest security clearance.

Suppose these people are keeping the Macgregor analysis from the President. In that case, it's almost criminal because this could result, this could result in death, more deaths of more innocents, and some of them might be Americans.

Douglas Macgregor:

Franklin Roosevelt was told in no uncertain terms by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in the Pacific that if he embarked on the embargo against Japan, there was a high probability that Japan would attack us. What happened? Right!

So, we're dealing with something very similar. Right now, I am thinking about this morning. Oliver Cromwell, one of my favorite people, a brilliant man who saved Great Britain from total anarchy, stood up in British Parliament and finally said to the King, you know, for all the good that you've done and for as long as you've sat here. Whatever you've done, you need to go. You're a disaster. You must leave to save England.

And I think you're reaching the point where someone will have to stand up and say to save the United States, Mr. Biden, you, and the people around you must go. That's the only solution I can think of right now.

Andrew Napolitano:

Let me switch to another issue related to this. American soldiers of fortune, American veterans were fighting on the ground. Two of them were in Ukraine, two captured by the Russians. Allegedly, they are beaten and made to give confessions. So, the Kremlin says the Geneva convention does not protect them. They'll be tried as terrorists, which means they'll be convicted and executed. Are you surprised, and is this just a bloviating threat, or will it happen?

Douglas Macgregor:

No, I think the Russians are very serious. Remember, every effort they made, a reasonable faith effort in their minds to end this war, to negotiate it into it, has been scorned by us.

We have supplied our proxy in Ukraine with weapons and support on a scale that we did not provide to the French or the British for a very long-time during World War II. If you're looking at this from the standpoint of the Russians, you say; first, the Americans are not only supporting our existential enemies. Now they're allowing former soldiers to show up and fight with the Ukrainians.

Now we can say these people volunteered and were at their own risk. But the Russians will look at this and say, this is no accident. The Americans could stop this if they wanted to. So now the problem is if you're sitting in the White House. How do you approach the Russians, either privately or publicly, on the issue? It's tough. So, I think it's severe, and the worst could happen.

Andrew Napolitano:

General Douglas Macgregor, no matter what we talk about, it's eye-opening and refreshing to hear the truth.

Thank you for joining us.

Douglas Macgregor:

Okay thank you